Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report€¦ · 1.4 Issues Dealt with in this Report ... In 2013, Healthscope lodged a planning permit application to further extend the hospital

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report Knox Planning Scheme

Amendment C132

Knox Private Hospital

8 September 2014

Planning and Environment Act 1987

Panel Report pursuant to Section 25 of the Act

Knox Planning Scheme Amendment C132

Knox Private Hospital

Kathy Mitchell, Chair Des Grogan, Member

Knox Planning Scheme Amendment C132 | Panel Report | 8 September 2014

Contents Page

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. i

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 The Panel Process .................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The Subject Site and Surrounds .............................................................................. 2 1.3 The Proposal ............................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Issues Dealt with in this Report ............................................................................... 4

2 Strategic Planning Context .......................................................................................... 6 2.1 Policy Framework .................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Development Plan Overlay ...................................................................................... 9 2.3 Strategic Assessment ............................................................................................. 11 2.4 Recommendation .................................................................................................. 13

3 Traffic Related Issues ................................................................................................ 14 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Car Parking ............................................................................................................. 14 3.3 Impact upon the Arterial Road Network ............................................................... 18 3.4 Pedestrian Movements ......................................................................................... 19 3.5 Car Park Design ...................................................................................................... 20

4 Amenity, Landscape and the Public Realm ................................................................ 21 4.1 Evidence and submissions ..................................................................................... 21 4.2 Discussion .............................................................................................................. 23 4.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 24 4.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 24

5 Other Matters ........................................................................................................... 25 5.1 Acoustics ................................................................................................................ 25 5.2 Infrastructure ........................................................................................................ 26

Appendix A: List of Submitters

Appendix B: Document List from Hearing

Appendix C: Revised Schedule 11 to Development Plan Overlay


Amendment Summary

The Amendment Knox Planning Scheme Amendment C132

Common Name Knox Private Hospital

Subject Site Knox Private Hospital, south east corner of Mountain Highway and Boronia Road, Knox

Purpose of Amendment Introduce a new Schedule 11 Knox Private Hospital Expansion to Clause 43.04 Development Plan Overlay to facilitate the proposed expansion of the Hospital generally in accordance with the Indicative Knox Private Hospital Master Plan, August 2013

The Proponent Healthscope Limited

Planning Authority City of Knox

Authorisation AO2705, 14 January 2014

Exhibition 30 January to 6 March 2014

Panel Process

The Panel Kathy Mitchell, Chair and Des Grogan, Member

Directions Hearing 3 June 2014 at Knox City Council

Panel Hearing 12, 13, and 14 August 2014 at Planning Panels Victoria, and 15 August 2014 at Knox City Council

Site Inspections Unaccompanied, on 3 June and 15 August 2014

Appearances See Table 1

Submissions 33 submissions received - See Appendix 1

Date of this Report 8 September 2014


Executive Summary The Knox Private Hospital has been located on its current site in Wantirna since the early 1980s. Since that time, a number of planning permits have been issued resulting in the Hospital gradually developing to become one of the largest private hospitals in metropolitan Melbourne.

Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme seeks to provide a long term framework for future development opportunities through the application of a new schedule to the Development Plan Overlay in accordance with an indicative Master Plan. Approval of the Amendment will enable the Hospital to achieve its further requirements over time, subject to planning permits, without further third party input, if proposed in accordance with the approved Plan.

The Knox Private Hospital forms part of an established medical precinct in Wantirna that is recognised as being of State strategic significance in Plan Melbourne. The precinct has local and state-wide policy support for its continued development.

The Panel considers that this level of policy support recognises the important role played by the Knox Private Hospital, and that it should be encouraged to expand to provide a broader range of medical services for the eastern metropolitan region of Melbourne. With some modifications to the exhibited version, the Panel supports the application of Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay to the site and the indicative Master Plan being used as the basis for preparation of the Development Plan.

Based on the reasons set out in this Report, the Panel recommends that Amendment C132 to the Knox Planning Scheme be adopted as exhibited, subject to the following modifications:

1. Amend Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay, as provided in Appendix C.

2. Require that the Traffic and Parking Management Plan consider the inclusion of the following:

a) Allocated on-site parking for night shift staff in locations most remote from the residential interfaces.

b) Questionnaire surveys to establish staff and visitor mode of travel as well as proportion of staff and visitor parking demand, and use of these results to determine the appropriate on-site parking supply.

c) signage at the entrances on Boronia Road and Mountain Highway to direct motorists to the designated drop of and pick up areas, and signs advising motorists to be aware of pedestrians.

3. Amend the Indicative Master Plan to: a) Provide a 7.5 metre set back to the southern boundary across the abuttal to

the multi-deck car park. b) Review the surface car park design abutting the southern boundary to

provide a minimum landscape buffer of 3.0 metres adjacent to the residential properties.

c) Relocate the gas cylinder to the east (with the other infrastructure services) if possible.

Page i


d) Move the eastern wing building 8.4 metres (or 1 construction grid) to the north.

e) Provide the following setbacks to Ainsdale Avenue: i. 9.5 metres along the northern frontage. ii. 4.8 metres along the southern frontage (south of Badminton Court).

f) Provide the following setbacks to Kidderminster Drive: i. 5.3 metres at the south and east corner axis. ii. 7.5 metres along the length adjacent to the multi deck car park. iii. 3.0 metres along the length of the surface car park. iv. 6.0 metres in the corner area adjacent to 112 Kidderminster Drive.

Page ii


1 Introduction 1.1 The Panel Process Knox Planning Scheme Amendment C132 (the Amendment) was prepared by the City of Knox as Planning Authority. As exhibited, the Amendment proposes to introduce a new Schedule 11 “Knox Private Hospital Expansion” to Clause 43.04 Development Plan Overlay to facilitate the proposed expansion of the hospital generally in accordance with the “Knox Private Hospital indicative Master Plan”. Approval of the Development Plan will exempt third party appeal rights for future development of the site under Sections 52(1)(a), (b) and (d), the decision requirements of Section 64(1), (2) and (3), and the review rights of Section 82 (1) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.

The Amendment applies to land at 262 Mountain Highway, Nos 2, 4, 6, and 8 Ainsdale Avenue and a former road known as (Little) Kidderminster Drive, Wantirna (known as the Knox Private Hospital).

The Amendment was prepared at the request of Healthscope Ltd (the proponent).

The Amendment was placed on public exhibition between 30 January and 6 March 2014, with 33 submissions received. The list of submitters is provided in Appendix 1. The relevant planning issues raised by submitters related to the impact of car parking on local streets, traffic and access, visual amenity and urban design, extent of development and the built form of the site, intrusion of non residential uses in a residential location, amenity and privacy impacts, acoustic impacts, safety issues, and the form of the Amendment in that it will preclude third party involvement in future planning permit applications.

The Panel notes that the agency submissions from Public Transport Victoria, Melbourne Water, South East Water, the Department of State Development, Business and Innovation and VicRoads offered no objection to the Amendment. VicRoads supplemented its original submission with an addendum, and this is discussed further in Chapter 3.

At its meeting of 22 April 2014, Council resolved to refer all submissions to a Panel. As a result, a Panel to consider the Amendment was appointed under delegation from the Minister for Planning on 8 May 2014 and comprises Kathy Mitchell (Chair) and Des Grogan (Member).

A Directions Hearing was held in relation to the Amendment on 3 June 2014. Following the Directions Hearing, the Panel undertook an unaccompanied inspection of the subject site and its surrounds.

The Panel met at Planning Panels Victoria on 12, 13 and 14 August 2014 and at Knox City Council on 15 August 2014 to hear submissions in respect of the Amendment. Those in attendance at the Panel Hearing are listed in Table 1.

Page 1 of 34


Table 1 Parties to the Panel Hearing

Submitter Represented by

City of Knox Maria Marshall of Maddocks, assisted by: - Jayna Liew, Strategic Planner - Kim Rawlings, Manager, City Futures - Judy Wilding, Project Support Officer, Strategic Planning

Healthscope Limited Paul Connor of Counsel, instructed by Andrew Natoli of Equipe Lawyers, who called the following expert witnesses:

- Robert Kelderman of Contour Consultants in planning - Craig Czarny of Hansen Partnership in urban design - John Kiriakidis of GTA Consultants in traffic and parking - Evan Dimitropoulos of John Patrick in landscape

Evidence was tabled from Alistair Bavage of Marshall Day Acoustics in acoustics, and from Johnny Wilkinson of Sharp in visual amenity. As no submitter requested to ask questions in relation to this evidence, these witnesses were not called. Harry Charalambous of Woods Bagot provided an overview of the Development Plan at the commencement of the Hearing, but did not provide evidence.

Individual submitters Holly Yu William Lewis Kazimierz Grzankowski Evan and Karen Moore

During Day 4 of the Hearing at Knox, the Panel undertook further unaccompanied inspections of the subject site and its surrounds, including the local street network.

At the request of the Panel and prior to the Hearing, Council provided its amended version of a revised Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay. This schedule included a new Clause 2.0 that included a requirement for a section 173 Agreement. In their evidence, both Mr Kelderman and Mr Czarny discussed the schedule to the overlay and proposed revisions to the schedule. For the purpose of this report, the Panel uses the exhibited version of the schedule as the basis of its review and discussions.

1.2 The Subject Site and Surrounds The subject land has a site area of approximately 4.15 hectares. It is located on the south east corner of Mountain Highway and Boronia Road, and on the west side of Ainsdale Avenue in Wantirna. It has a 300 metre frontage to Mountain Highway, and an 80 metre frontage to both Boronia Road and Ainsdale Avenue. The site is near the top of a gentle hill which falls from the Boronia Road/Mountain Highway intersection south and east.

The existing hospital is benched into the site, with a three storey form in the centre and near the eastern boundary. Numbers 2 to 8 Ainsdale Avenue are occupied by single storey dwellings, and are used for medical and residential purposes.

Page 2 of 34


1.3 The Proposal In 1985, the Knox Private Hospital opened as a 120 bed hospital. Since that time, it has grown to 300 beds, and has a 24 hour emergency department, 11 theatres, 20 consulting rooms and over 700 car spaces. It is the largest private hospital in the eastern metropolitan area and employs over 1,300 people. It provides a broad range of specialist inpatient, day surgery, outpatient and diagnostic services and it fulfils an important education and training role within the medical sector. The Hospital provides a broad range of acute services and to the end of June 2014, it has admitted and treated over 30,000 patients, performed over 20,000 procedures and treated over 19,000 patients in its emergency department.

In 2013, Healthscope lodged a planning permit application to further extend the hospital. This was for what is known as the Stages 1 and 2 expansion to allow the Hospital to construct an additional 60 beds, 10 consulting suites and 136 car parking spaces, with a new main entrance.

As Knox City Council failed to determine to grant a planning permit within the prescribed time, Healthscope sought a review at VCAT under section 79 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. After a five day hearing in May and June 2014 (whereby the Council and some residents objected to the application), the Tribunal made an order to issue a permit (P/2001/6593) for the expansion on 8 July 2014 (VCAT P192/2014) (the VCAT decision), subject to conditions.

In summary, at paragraphs 6 and 7, VCAT found that, amongst other matters:

At its highest, we find the community benefit this proposal provides outweighs the adverse impacts caused by its activities and buildings. We rely on Clause 10 of the Knox Planning Scheme in determining that a permit should be granted for this proposal, with off-site amenity impacts being managed as best as practicable within this context.

In summary, we find • State and local planning policy strongly supports the hospital’s expansion; • The site’s zoning contemplates non-residential uses; • Planning policy support and the existing hospital’s presence is the prism

through which the character objectives should be viewed; • The car park wall facing Ainsdale Avenue responds appropriately to its

context and respects the neighbourhood’s character through its setback, articulation, materials and colours;

• The proposed eastern setbacks and adjacent building heights and form demonstrate an urban design approach that protects the visual amenity of the adjacent properties to an acceptable degree;

• Overlooking and overshadowing of adjacent properties are managed in an acceptable fashion;

• Noise from the loading dock/waste compaction and collection area and associated access paths will not unreasonably affect the amenity of nearby residents … ;

• …

Page 3 of 34


• The impacts on traffic and parking in local streets are acceptable; • Any refinements to the parking situation are the council’s responsibility.

The Panel considers that due to the issues raised and the extent of the determination, the VCAT decision is a key consideration in reconciling this Amendment.

The proposed Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay provides the planning framework to develop the site in Stages 3 to 6, in accordance with an indicative Master Plan, as follows:

• Stage 3 – South – two additional car park levels, new emergency department, revised car parking layout

• Stage 4 – Central - internal expansion of surgical suites and new theatres • Stage 5 – North - further expansion of wards over the existing car park, up to 180 new

beds • Stage 6 - Maternity – new maternity block with 60 beds.

This is anticipated to result in an additional 173 beds and 242 car parking spaces over that permitted for Stages 1 and 2.

The Panel was advised by Mr Connor (Document 11 - paragraph 23) that:

A conservative assessment by Healthscope of the likely demand for hospital beds in the future (based on modest growth forecasts) indicates that an additional capacity of approximately 200 beds will be needed in the next four years in order to meet the surgical needs of patients in key specialities.

Ms Marshall opened for Council by affirming that Council is very supportive of the Hospital in its current location and that Council recognises the need for the Hospital to be able to continue to expand to cater for population growth and change. She stated that it is a significant advantage to Council and residents to have the Hospital in its current location. Notwithstanding, Ms Marshall advised that Council has three areas of concern, these being the treatment of the residential interfaces, traffic and car parking, and illegal traffic movements.

Council sought to address these matters in a revised Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay (16 July 2014) that provides for a section 173 agreement to address some of Council’s concerns. Specifically, these include a new provision for a Traffic and Parking Management Plan that provides for, among other things, a requirement for free onsite parking for Hospital and contract staff, extending the free onsite parking from 30 to 60 minutes, and providing measures to address illegal U-turns on Boronia Road. The proponent rejected these concerns and the inclusion of a section 173 agreement as part of the schedule to the overlay.

1.4 Issues Dealt with in this Report The Panel has considered the written submissions, as well as submissions and evidence presented to it during the Hearing. In addressing the issues raised in submissions, the Panel has been assisted by the information provided to it as well as its observations from inspections of the subject site and its surrounds.

Page 4 of 34


As well, the aforementioned decision of VCAT is significant in considering the context of this Amendment.

This report deals with the key issues under the following headings: • strategic planning context • traffic related issues • amenity, landscape and the public realm • other matters (acoustics and infrastructure).

Page 5 of 34


2 Strategic Planning Context The Panel commenced the Hearing by advising that it had noted and read the VCAT decision of 8 July 2014 and that it would not re-prosecute any matter relating to that decision. The Panel observed that VCAT found there was strong state and local policy support for the proposal before it, and the observations made by VCAT in this regard were endorsed by the Panel.

Notwithstanding, the Panel has reviewed the policy context of the Amendment and provides a brief appraisal of the relevant State and local policy, and the zone controls pertaining to the subject land. The Panel was provided with planning evidence from Mr Kelderman on behalf of Healthscope, and although it was tested, his evidence was largely accepted by Council and other parties.

2.1 Policy Framework

2.1.1 State Planning Policy The Amendment is supported by the following clauses in the SPPF:

• Clause 10 – Operation of the State Planning Policy Framework • Clause 11 – Settlement • Clause 15 – Built Environment and Heritage • Clause 18 – Transport • Clause 19 – Infrastructure.

Plan Melbourne was released in May 2014. Direction 4.4 Plan for Future Social Infrastructure leads to Initiative 4.4.1, which aims to create health and education precincts to meet the needs of residents across Melbourne. Some of the short term initiatives are to:

• Prepare and implement planning provisions to support the establishment of health services and the clustering of public, private and not-for-profit health services, including possible streamlined planning processes within health precincts.

Plan Melbourne designates the Knox Private Hospital as a health precinct of State significance, the strategic direction of which is:

To improve access to health and/or education services and to improve job choices in these industries for Melbournians. As significant generators of skilled employment, activity and visitation, these precincts will support ancillary health and/or education, retail, commercial, accommodation, services, housing and public transport. ….

Plan Melbourne notes that there are six health precincts designated in the six national employment clusters, and the Knox Private Hospital is noted as one of nine others. Map 33 (Eastern subregion, comprising Boroondara, Knox, Manningham, Maroondah, Monash, Whitehorse and Yarra Ranges) shows this designation of the Hospital being centrally located in this region.

In his written submission, Mr Couper said that there is no strategy from the State Government on future medical facilities for the City of Knox. It is now clear from Plan

Page 6 of 34


Melbourne that there is recognition of the role of the Knox Private Hospital and the wider medical precinct, and its strategic significance at a State level in the Melbourne metropolitan area. This designation also provides a major employment node for the municipality and the region.

2.1.2 Local Planning Policy The Amendment is supported the following local planning objectives:

• Clause 21.01 – Municipal Profile • Clause 21.02 – Key Influences • Clause 21.03 – Vision and Strategic Land Use Framework • Clause 21.04 – Urban Design • Clause 21.05 - Housing • Clause 21.07 – Economic Development • Clause 21.08 – Infrastructure • Clause 22.07 – Neighbourhood Character

The Municipal Profile at Clause 21.01 notes that Knox is located 25 kilometres to the east of Melbourne and that it has “emerged from a period of high growth to a time of maturity and consolidation”. It acknowledges that Knox will face a number of challenges, including demographic changes, housing growth, and increased demand for social services due to a substantial change in the population characteristics of the Knox community. The age groups experiencing the most change will be those over 55 years.

Clause 21.02 notes that the changing demographic profile will create a different demand for housing types and consequential changes for infrastructure. The Knox Private Hospital is recognised as a ‘Medical Employment Precinct’ in Clause 21.03 and a key vision is to provide and facilitate a range of high quality and accessible facilities to meet contemporary needs.

The importance of the public realm is recognised in Clause 21.04, as is ecologically sustainable design. Through this clause, the site is acknowledged as having a prominent keystone building format in the Urban Design Strategic Framework Plan.

The Housing Strategic Framework Plan at Clause 21.05 shows the subject land being adjacent to a Neighbourhood Activity Centre, where infill medium density housing is encouraged. The lack of diversity in housing stock is noted as being likely to become more apparent as the housing needs of the Knox community change over time. Clause 21.05 acknowledges:

As the Knox population ages and number of people with disabilities increases, demand for a range of specific social services including respite care, and affordable, public and social housing options will continue to grow.

Non-residential uses in residential areas, including medical centres, are recognised as being appropriate uses in Clause 21.07, which further notes that some of these uses locate in residential areas due to proximity to a major facility such as a hospital. It further notes that “The improper design or location of these facilities in a residential environment can, however, negatively impact on the residential amenity of an area.”

Page 7 of 34


Objective 9 of Clause 21.07 is:

To allow non-residential uses in residential areas which provide services to the community without significant detriment to residential amenity.

The objective has a number of strategies that relate to levels of activity, hours of operation, character, amenity and signage. The Economic Strategic Framework Plan designates the Hospital site as a Medical Precinct, and notes that economic analysis is to determine the future potential of the precinct.

Infrastructure at Clause 21.08 observes the car culture of Knox and that:

Planning for land use and development should positively influence the health and wellbeing of the Knox community by facilitating outcomes that will lead to increased levels of social connectedness and cohesion.

Further, it says:

Like new housing, new health and community facilities should ideally be located close to existing public transport networks and hubs of activity that provide essential goods and services. The establishment of a medical precinct near the new Wantirna Health centre (opened in 2007) will provide a clustering of like services for the convenience of users.

It is clear that the Hospital site, the development of consulting rooms and the Wantirna health centre and its facilities have led to the recognition of this precinct as being of local and now State strategic significance, which is expressed through the Infrastructure and Movement Strategic Framework Plan.

Neighbourhood character is dealt with at Clause 22.07 where there is recognition that new residential development should contribute to continuation of the recognised character of the local areas. This is in the main, recognition that the Garden Court and Villa Court Precincts are the predominate residential areas abutting the Hospital. It is noted that the Hospital has its eastern interface and southern back to these precincts, so the key issue is managing the interfaces between the east side (Ainsdale Avenue) and the south boundary (Kidderminster Drive).

2.1.3 Zones The subject land was recently rezoned to the General Residential Zone through Amendment VC116 (1 July 2014), as part of the introduction of the new residential zones. Prior to that, the main part of the Hospital site and 2 – 4 Ainsdale Avenue were included in the Residential 1 Zone, and 6 – 8 Ainsdale Avenue was included in the Residential 3 Zone. Council has recently exhibited Amendment C131 to the Knox Planning Scheme which proposes to rezone the whole Hospital site and all of the Ainsdale Avenue properties to the Residential Growth Zone, Schedule 3.

Since exhibition, Council has resolved to include the Ainsdale Avenue sites in the General Residential Zone, Schedule 2. In its submission, Council observed at paragraphs 24 and 25:

Similar to the current zoning of the subject land, the purposes of the RGZ3 and GRZ2 also include allowing education, recreation, religious, community and a

Page 8 of 34


limited range of other non-residential uses to serve local community needs in appropriate locations.

Further, the RGZ3 supports the implementation of a DPO on the subject land by identifying it as ‘Other Sites affected by a Design and Development Overlay or Development Plan Overlay’ and therefore providing site specific guidance through the relevant DPO. Amendment C131 also identifies the Hospital as being located within a future, potential medical precinct.

A separate Panel Hearing for Amendment C131 commenced on 26 August 2014, and this Panel makes no comment about the proposed zones for the Hospital site.

2.2 Development Plan Overlay The exhibited Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay ‘Knox Private Hospital Expansion’ contains a number of objectives, then lists the various clauses:

• Clause 1.0 – requirement before a permit is granted • Clause 2.0 – conditions and requirements for permits • Clause 3.0 – requirements for development plan • Clause 4.0 – decision guidelines.

With regard to the requirements for the Development Plan, the Clause notes that the Development Plan must be in accordance with Figure 1 to the schedule, the indicative Master Plan, and it must include the following:

• site analysis and context plan • layout and elevation plans • waste management plan • traffic and car parking management plan • traffic report • response to safety by design • disability access audit report • landscape plan.

The Development Plan must be approved by the Responsible Authority. A number of other plans are also listed as conditions and requirements for the application of for a permit.

The Panel was provided with an A3 book of plans prepared by Woods Bagot (Document 2) that includes various detailed plans of the proposed expansion of the Hospital, including the indicative Master Plan, precinct sections, aerial perspectives, shadow diagrams, levels and elevations. While the plans have no formal status, they clearly have been prepared to be an expression of how the indicative Master Plan will be resolved, and they were very useful in understanding the extent and impact of future development. It is clear to the Panel that these plans will form the basis of the Development Plan to be prepared as part of the next stage of the approvals process.

A number of submitters expressed concern that if the Amendment was approved, they would no longer be able to comment on future planning permit applications. Mr Grzankowski said “The Development Plan Overlay deprives residents of the opportunity to scrutinise each Hospital development/building application, and object to those developments

Page 9 of 34


that will impact on their lives”. One of the key purposes of using the Development Plan Overlay tool is that the framework for the ultimate development of the site is laid out and all future planning applications are progressed in accordance with an approved Development Plan.

Mr Grzankowski rightly acknowledged the role of submitters in reviewing Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay, and questioned what the schedule might look like if residents had not been able to make submissions. This is precisely the role of an open and transparent Amendment process that allows submissions, and provides the opportunity for all parties, including the Council and individual submitters to participate in the Amendment process and to suggest modifications to the schedule. However, once the Development Plan Overlay is gazetted, it does preclude submitters from the planning permit approvals process for future applications. However, what this Amendment has done – and what does not often occur in a Development Plan Overlay proposal - is that it includes an indicative Master Plan to be used as the basis for a Development Plan so that all interested parties are able to see and comment on the proposed final form of the development framework for the site. In this way, the Development Plan must generally be consistent with the Indicative Master Plan. Quite often, a schedule to a Development Plan Overlay provides the words, but not the plan. Additionally, Document 2 provided even further detail about the likely ultimate form of development to occur for the site.

The Decision Guidelines at Clause 4.0 make it clear that in approving the Development Plan or any amendments to the Development Plan, the Responsible Authority must consider the provisions and requirements of the indicative Master Plan.

Once approved, the Development Plan Overlay exempts permit applications that are generally in accordance with the plan from notice and review. The Panel considers this to be an appropriate planning outcome. The Practice Note ‘Applying the Incorporated Plan and Development Plan Overlays’ notes that under use and development:

Once a plan is approved, both overlays require that all planning permits granted by the responsible authority must be ‘generally in accordance’ with the plan. To fulfil this requirement, the responsible authority must test each proposal against the use and development requirements of the plan. ….

Council endorsed the use of the Development Plan Overlay for this Amendment. While Council expressed some views about the community not being part of future planning processes, it is noted that a planning permit application that is not in accordance with the approved Development Plan, is required to reinstate third party rights. While there was discussion at the Hearing that use of the Development Plan Overlay does not preclude Council from seeking comment or opinion on any application in a non statutory or informal way, the Panel observes that the Practice Note makes the following comment in relation to ‘Exemption from notice and review’:

Both overlays exempt permit applications that are generally in accordance with the plan from notice and review.

Page 10 of 34


Responsible Authorities are discouraged from using non-statutory consultation practices to assist in deciding planning applications that are generally in accordance with the plan. Where notice is being served without a basis in the planning scheme or Planning and Environment Act 1987, it is possible that defects in the notice process can be judicially reviewed in the Supreme Court.

Council and the expert witnesses for the proponent (Mr Czarny and Mr Kelderman) made a number of comments and suggested modifications about the schedule to the Development Plan Overlay. Council proposed that the requirement for a section 173 agreement be included in the schedule to cater for car parking and other matters. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3. While invited, the submitters to the Hearing did not provide additional comments about the overlay, and they generally endorsed Council’s preferred version.

2.3 Strategic Assessment Knox is a community in flux, with changing demographic and housing needs. Knox and the broader region is an ageing community. It has good infrastructure that needs to adapt over time to cater for its ageing population. The Panel understands that ageing communities rely more on the health system and hospitals than any other user group. Agglomeration of medical facilities with a major hospital is sound practice and creates synergistic benefits.

State and local planning policy recognises the strategic significance of the Hospital and its role in both the municipality and the broader eastern metropolitan region. Consolidating major health precincts and streamlining planning processes is a major initiative of Plan Melbourne. The Panel agrees with Mr Connor that with the Hospital enjoying a prime strategic location, and its designation as a health precinct of State significance, this has ramifications for the kind of built form outcome expected in providing a range of hospital and medical services. A key thrust of Plan Melbourne is to create certainty for investment in private (and public) health facilities. The Panel adopts the submission of Mr Connor (Document 11 – paragraph 27), which says:

The proposed expansion which is facilitated by the Amendment represents a significant investment in a major health facility located at the intersection of major traffic routes and adjacent to the Wantirna neighbourhood Activity Centre, within an area identified in Local Policy as a “Medical Employment Precinct”. The Amendment will assist in the implementation of policy that seeks to cluster and consolidate health services. The Amendment will also facilitate the provision of continued excellence in health service provision for this municipality and also the broader Eastern Metropolitan Melbourne Region.

Planning is very much about balancing the needs of competing objectives and managing change, all in the interests of achieving a net community benefit.

The Knox Private Hospital is well located to serve the changing needs of the community and it should be encouraged to continue to grow to meet the medical needs of this region. While it is acknowledged that some submitters feel that the Hospital has intruded into their local residential area and adversely impacted upon local amenity, the Panel considers that the local and much wider net community benefit of the Hospital and the need it serves, takes precedence over local impacts, which the Panel considers are able to be adequately

Page 11 of 34


managed. However, the Hospital must ensure that it is a ‘good neighbour’ and that it be responsive to ensure impacts of future development are well managed and minimised.

For the reasons that follow in this report, the Panel makes some modifications to the schedule to the Development Plan Overlay and to the indicative Master Plan.

Taking into consideration the issues raised through this amendment process, some of the key modifications that the Panel has accepted with regard to the exhibited Development Plan Overlay include:

Objectives • consolidating and summarising the objectives to be more focussed and succinct Requirements for Development Plan • including a new provision regarding vertical and horizontal fenestration, and for

modulation and articulation • deleting reference to Clause 55 • updating the requirements for the Traffic and Parking Management Plan • rejecting the Council post exhibition request for a section 173 agreement Requirements before a permit is granted • providing clarity about what works can be undertaken before a permit is granted, and

retaining the provision for temporary land uses Conditions and requirements for permits, and decision guidelines • generally supporting the Council preferred inclusions

Additionally, the Panel clarifies the setbacks in the indicative Master Plan to ensure that it will enable a Development Plan to be prepared that will provide a greater level of amenity protection to the immediate neighbours, particularly those in Kidderminster Drive.

The matters are explored and articulated in Chapters 3, 4 and 5.

While Ms Marshall observed that the provisions of the Knox Planning Scheme at Clauses 21 and 22 “aim to provide balanced quality urban development, particularly in areas where a non-residential use is in a residential location to harmonise with the existing neighbourhood character and to avoid significant detriment to residential amenity”, she advised that the Amendment is generally consistent with the strategic planning context found in the SPPF and the LPPF.

Overall, the Panel considers that the Amendment is supported by and implements relevant State and local planning policy. In this case, the net community benefit to be achieved by the Amendment is of the highest order in that it implements both State and local planning policy. Such benefits include provision of health and social services for an ageing population, enhanced public health outcomes, realisation of State and local planning policy, continued economic development in the region, and creation of additional employment opportunities. While the Panel recommends modifications to the Development Plan Overlay, it endorses the application of Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay for the Knox Private Hospital site.

Page 12 of 34


2.4 Recommendation The Panel recommends:

Amend Schedule 11 to the Development Plan Overlay, as provided in Appendix C.

Page 13 of 34


3 Traffic Related Issues 3.1 Introduction Residents and Council raised three issues in relation to traffic matters associated with the hospital:

• illegal U turns at the Boronia Road/Ainsdale Avenue intersection • pedestrian safety • car parking.

Two of these three issues were discussed at length at the recent VCAT hearing. VicRoads did not accept Council’s request for traffic signals at the Boronia Road/Ainsdale Avenue intersection and requested that VCAT not impose such a condition. VCAT accepted VicRoads opinion and indicated “on balance, we are satisfied that the increased traffic on Boronia Road and nearby streets resulting from the development is acceptable”.

Clearly, the VCAT determination related to Stages 1 and 2 of the development. Based upon the evidence provided, the Panel has no reason to depart from that opinion in relation to the scale of development proposed under Amendment C132, and therefore does not intend to discuss this matter at length.

3.2 Car Parking

3.2.1 Evidence and submissions Ms Marshall indicated that “of the 27 resident submissions, 21 submissions expressed concerns regarding parking, particularly parking overspill from the Hospital onto surrounding local streets”. In order to address these concerns, Council proposed the following measures through the inclusion of a section 173 agreement in the schedule to the Development Plan Overlay:

• free onsite parking for Hospital staff and contractors • local area traffic management initiatives and/or changes to existing on-street parking

restrictions for the street network surrounding the Knox Private Hospital, or other measures, development to minimise on street parking by Hospital staff, contractors and visitors

• free onsite parking for a minimum of one hour for Hospital visitors.

In addition, Ms Marshall addressed Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme, and said “Council submits that on its face, Clause 52.06 of the Scheme requires that parking to be “provided” ought to be freely available, without restriction and without the requirement for payment of a fee”. However, Ms Marshall stated “Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that the Tribunal and indeed, this Council has, at least in the past, accepted the notion that fees for car parking are an acceptable means of acquitting the obligation contained in Clause 52.06”.

In addition to the free on-site parking for staff and visitors staying for one hour, Council proposed the “extension of the parking restriction scheme currently operating in surrounding streets”.

Page 14 of 34


In Council’s view, these measures will “be sufficient to ameliorate much of the detriment to residential amenity caused by the Hospital’s expansion”.

Ms Marshall indicated that Council “would seek a contribution from the Hospital with regard to associated hardware costs” as well as “a contribution towards the enforcement of further parking restrictions”.

As part of Council’s submission (Document 3), two spreadsheets were provided under the heading of Parking Impacts. Page 1 was a summary of Parking Complaints around Knox Private Hospital between 2011 and 2014, and page 2 showed predicted expenditure and income for a 10 year period assuming extension and further policing of the new parking policy.

Following a request from the Panel, Ms Marshall advised that during the 2012/13 financial year, 21 parking infringement notices were issued on the local street network in the vicinity of the hospital. During the 2013/14 year, 11 infringement notices were issued.

Mr Kiriakidis of GTA Consultants gave evidence relating to traffic issues on behalf of Healthscope. Mr Kiriakidis had previously presented evidence at the VCAT hearing.

On-site and on-street parking surveys were undertaken by GTA in March 2013 and March 2014. The latter survey included the service road in Boronia Road. Hourly variations in parking demand were plotted from the data collected. Taking into consideration accepted parking generation rates for Consulting rooms, GTA derived rates of 1.58 and 1.88 spaces per bed for the 2013 and 2014 surveys respectively.

Relying upon information provided by Healthscope, Mr Kiriakidis derived a 9% staff efficiency rating to the expanded hospital.

In order to “better understand the proportional contribution of car parking between staff and patients and visitors” GTA referred to a recent questionnaire survey undertaken at Cabrini hospital in Malvern. This survey indicated that 35% of total parking demand was attributed to staff and 65% to patients and visitors. These rates and the 9% staff efficiency rating was applied to the Knox Private Hospital parking space per bed ratio to derive a total parking demand for the expansion sought under the Amendment. This analysis concluded that a peak parking demand of 1105 spaces would be generated. This represents a shortfall of 17 car parking spaces, “assuming all car parking is contained on the subject land”.

Mr Kiriakidis acknowledged that “a portion of car parking in association with the hospital use occurs off-site in the surrounding areas”. It was estimated that 11 staff vehicles and 22 visitor vehicles parked on street and that this number would increase to 40 vehicles under the development approved by VCAT. Mr Kiriakidis concluded that the on-site parking supply would be exceeded for around one hour around 2.00pm. However, he stated that a conventional car park “reliant on consistently achieving an occupancy of 100% is unlikely”.

He said that some drivers “find it (subject to external parking controls in the nearby area) more convenient to park in the surrounding area”. He therefore recommended that the “proposed ultimate car park be developed with car park assistance technology”. Alternatively, he offered that:

Page 15 of 34


The applicant may wish to explore:

1. An extension of the existing conventional car parking arrangement and increase the provision of car parking so that a suitable “buffer” is provided. I would be comfortable with a buffer of between 2.5% and 5%. Discussions with the applicant on this issue indicates that additional sub-surface car parking may be possible in the southwest corner of the site. Preliminary sketches indicate a floor plate could achieve a net gain of around 50 car spaces however, additional investigation will be required to assess it (sic) feasibility. This value would reflect an increase of around 4% which would sit within the specified range.

2. Complete additional parking surveys following the delivery and settlement of Stages 1 and 2 to better appreciate expected facility efficiencies and the success of the car parking management study (CPMS) required under Condition 17 of recently issued Planning Permit and the Travel Plan required under Condition 24.

A number of residents made submissions about the impact of parking on local streets and produced photographs of vehicles parking inappropriately in the local streets. Many of the photographs were taken after the introduction of parking fees in the hospital car park and prior to the introduction of parking restrictions on the local streets.

Resident submitters inferred that they were concerned about parking overspill during the construction phase of the various stages of the Hospital expansion.

3.2.2 Discussion Paragraph 148 of the VCAT Determination stated “a fee paying car park for the hospital is consistent with most metropolitan hospitals, public and private … we support a parking fee structure that is comparable to other metropolitan hospitals, especially Eastern Health opposite the site”.

In paragraph 152, VCAT stated “Our inspection of the site and area revealed the current on-street parking pattern of Ainsdale Avenue and nearby streets. It reveals that on-street parking demand is not high”. This observation is similar to that of the Panel, who have undertaken inspections at various times of the day on different days of the week. The Panel’s observations of on-site car parking indicated significant vacant parking spaces within the hospital car park.

This is not to suggest that hospital visitors and staff do not park on the street or that vehicles are not parked inappropriately. The latter is a function of driver behaviour and can only be addressed by issuing intervention and parking fines.

The Panel acknowledges that Clause 52.06 of the Planning Scheme is silent on the matter of paid car parking. However, as mentioned by Ms Marshall, it has achieved common acceptance with both Council and VCAT.

Council has not undertaken any on-site or on-street parking surveys. The only ‘evidence’ provided by Council in relation to parking was a list of complaints received by Council. The complaints list showed a significant reduction in complaints in most locations since the introduction of parking restrictions in 2011. The fact that Council officers issued 21 parking

Page 16 of 34


infringement notices in 2012/13 and 11 in 2013/14 suggests that only limited policing of parking is occurring, or on-street parking is not a problem.

The Panel finds there is little if any comparison between mode of transport trends at Cabrini Hospital Malvern and Knox Private Hospital. A comparison of public transport services and population density highlights that it is not appropriate to directly translate the Cabrini results to Knox. The Panel notes that Mr Kiriakidis has applied the Cabrini data to the Knox survey data of 1.88 spaces per bed, subject to staff efficiency. However, if the projected staff efficiencies do not occur and a higher proportion of staff drive, the peak parking demand around the shift handover could exceed that estimated by Mr Kiriakidis.

The Panel accepts that some drivers will not park on-site even if free or minimal cost parking is available. Apart from time restrictions, very little can be done to discourage this behaviour. Residents have indicated annoyance from “banging doors early in the morning as they (staff) leave after their night shift, at 5, 6 and 7am”. This concern could be addressed by allocating parking spaces in the basement for night shift staff.

Condition 17 of the permit issued by VCAT required a car parking management study to be undertaken within six months of completion of the buildings and works. Mr Kiriakidis recommended monitoring of on-street parking demand.

The Panel believes that the parking study should include a questionnaire survey, similar to that undertaken at Cabrini Malvern. The aim of the study is to determine staff and visitor mode of transport, proportions of staff and visitors, total parking demand at change of shift and extent of on-street parking by category of user.

Condition 41(a) of the VCAT permit requires a plan to be prepared which shows “the provision of and management of parking (on-site and off-site) during construction of all works.”

3.2.3 Conclusions Based upon the evidence provided to the Panel, it appears as though the current level of on-site car parking satisfies the demand generated by the Hospital and there is minimal on-street parking associated with the hospital.

Mr Kiriakidis’ analysis of future parking demand indicates that the proposed on-site supply will satisfy the demand.

The resident submitters dispute this finding.

The Panel is confident that the controls proposed, that is, parking demand studies undertaken at various stages of the development, will enable more accurate predictions of future parking demand to be determined. These studies along with the ability to introduce new parking technology and additional on-site parking, if required, should go some way to appeasing the concerns of the residents. The Panel notes that Council has included the provision for parking guidance technology as part of the revised requirements for the Traffic and Parking Management Plan, and the Panel supports this addition.

Page 17 of 34


3.2.4 Recommendation The Panel recommends:

Require that the Traffic and Parking Management Plan consider the inclusion of the following:

a) Allocated on-site parking for night shift staff in locations most remote from the residential interfaces.

b) Questionnaire surveys to establish staff and visitor mode of travel as well as proportion of staff and visitor parking demand, and use of these results to determine the appropriate on-site parking supply.

3.3 Impact upon the Arterial Road Network

3.3.1 Evidence and Submissions Mr Kiriakidis indicated that the site was located adjacent to two primary arterial roads (Mountain Highway and Boronia Road), with a third (Wantirna Road) in the immediate vicinity. Daily traffic volumes on these roads ranged from approximately 18,000 vehicles per day (vpd) on Wantirna Road to 47,000 vpd on Boronia Road.

Existing and future vehicular access to the hospital car parking areas is provided off declared main roads under VicRoads control. Mr Kiriakidis and VicRoads agreed that the proposed hospital expansion will have no adverse impact on the operation of the arterial road network.

Council and residents raised the issue of illegal U-turns at the Boronia Road/Ainsdale Avenue intersection, with Council requesting signalisation of the intersection. As previously indicated, VicRoads and VCAT rejected this option for a number of reasons.

Through the most recent VCAT matter, Mr Kiriakidis and VicRoads agreed the following mitigation works:

• fully controlled right turn movement at the Boronia Road intersection for westbound traffic, including a minor increase to the right turn phase during the pm peak only

• close the median on the west approach to the Boronia Road/Wantirna Road intersection to permit extension of the right turn lane

• extend the right turn lane on Mountain Highway by approximately 15 metres to facilitate access to the site.

3.3.2 Discussion Clearly the proximity of the Ainsdale Avenue intersection to the Mountain Highway traffic signals precludes the installation of traffic signals. Furthermore, the issue of illegal U-turns is a function of driver behaviour and that would not necessarily be addressed if signals were able to be installed.

The Panel agrees with VCAT that extension of the right turn lane on Boronia Road west will encourage a greater volume of hospital destined traffic to access the site via Mountain Highway.

Page 18 of 34


3.3.3 Conclusions The Panel concludes that the Hospital expansion proposed under Amendment C132 will not have an adverse impact upon traffic operating conditions on the adjacent road network.

3.4 Pedestrian Movements

3.4.1 Evidence and Submissions Mr Lewis raised the issue of pedestrian safety, specifically relating to the car park entrance on Boronia Road. He said:

Visitors parking in Ainsdale/Boronia precinct take a short cut through this entrance to the Hospital. Elderly people have been observed sitting on the island next to the Boom Gates waiting for their pick up vehicle. This is highly dangerous. Cars have been observed dropping off staff and visitors at this entrance temporarily stopping in the driveway.

Condition 1(h) of the VCAT determination required “provision of a 1.4 metre wide footpath connection from the bus stop at the intersection of Boronia Road and Ainsdale Avenue to connect to the existing footpath on Boronia Road adjacent to the Hospital subject to the approval of VicRoads”.

Woods Bagot drawing DPO-N-12B (Document 2) shows a new patient/visitor/staff pick up/drop off area on RL 121 in the Northern Precinct, adjacent to the northern façade of the existing hospital. This pick up/drop off area is able to be accessed via both the Boronia Road and Mountain Highway vehicular access points to the site.

3.4.2 Discussion The proposed pick up/drop off facility provides the opportunity to avoid the current unsafe practices, however, it does not guarantee that everyone being picked up/dropped off at the site will use the facility.

It can be very difficult to retro fit pedestrian routes into an existing car park. Woods Bagot drawing DPO-N-10 shows a new lift lobby and designated pedestrian route within the car park at RL 114.5, that is, the Boronia Road car park entry level. However, the designated pedestrian route does not extend to the Boronia Road footpath.

The Panel considers that there could be opportunities for improved signage to better inform motorists about the drop off and pick up areas, as well as alerting motorists to be cognisant of pedestrians. This work could be reviewed and undertaken as part of preparation of the Traffic and Parking Management Plan.

3.4.3 Recommendation The Panel recommends:

Require the Traffic and Parking Management Plan to consider the inclusion of signage at the entrances on Boronia Road and Mountain Highway to direct motorists to the designated drop of and pick up areas, and signs advising motorists to be aware of pedestrians.

Page 19 of 34


3.5 Car Park Design

3.5.1 Evidence and submissions The Woods Bagot Master Plan (Document 2) shows that the existing RL 129.50 car park (level 1) is to be extended to the west and a ramp constructed at the eastern end of this deck connecting to RL 132.60, level 2. This car park deck is set back 7.5 metres from the southern boundary of the site.

Ms Yu indicated that the landscape buffer to the surface car park located adjacent to her rear boundary was inadequate and that the relocated gas cylinder proposed a safety threat to her property.

Ms Marshall suggested that the car park deck should be set back a further 4.5 metres from the southern boundary of the site to produce a total setback of 12.0 metres for both level 2 and level 3 of the car park.

3.5.2 Discussion The Panel finds that increasing the car park set back to 12.0 metres will eliminate the southern aisle on each parking deck, resulting in a loss of approximately 85 parking spaces.

The Panel agrees with Ms Yu that the landscape buffer is inadequate. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the design of the surface car park should be reviewed to enable realignment of the ramp from the surface car park to the loading bay to enable a wider landscaping buffer to be provided on the boundary. The review should include an assessment of whether the gas cylinder could be relocated to the east in the vicinity of the gas bottle enclosure and existing generator. This would locate it further away from residential properties.

3.5.3 Recommendations The Panel recommends:

Amend the Indicative Master Plan to: a) Provide a 7.5 metre set back to the southern boundary across the abuttal to

the multi-deck car park. b) Review the surface car park design abutting the southern boundary to

provide a minimum landscape buffer of 3.0 metres adjacent to the residential properties.

c) Relocate the gas cylinder to the east (with the other infrastructure services) if possible.

Page 20 of 34


4 Amenity, Landscape and the Public Realm A number of submitters expressed concerns about the impacts of the continuing development of the Hospital on local residential amenity, particularly in relation to visual amenity and landscaping.

4.1 Evidence and submissions In submissions, Mr and Ms Moore were concerned about the interface of the southern boundary to their property. While noting that “Whilst personally we do not object to development and in fact welcome the strategy by both Knox Council and Healthscope”, the Moore’s expressed concern about continuing development on the southern interface, lack of consultation about landscaping opportunities, invasion of privacy and impacts on the general aesthetics of the area.

Similar concerns were expressed by Ms Yu at the Hearing, and she argued that matters of amenity impact were of concern to themselves and the local community. In particular Ms Yu suggested that the southern boundary landscape buffer should be in the order of six to eight metres along the entire southern boundary, and not one to three metres in the vicinity of the surface car park area. In her submission to the Panel, Ms Yu said that while the Amendment might be expected to have positive social and economic effects:

However, the Amendment C132 does not consider the serious impacts on the health and quality of life of the local residents, in term of the level of noise, dust and fumes on a daily basis as well as potential hazards and safety issues. Ultimately the Amendment C132 will interrupt and negatively impact on the lives of local residents on a daily basis.

Ms Yu concluded by stating “… in reality, the Project-Knox Planning Scheme (Amendment C132) is too big for the current site”.

Mr Lewis is a long term resident who bought into a “pleasant quiet area” which changed when the Knox Private Hospital commenced in the early 1980s. While many of his concerns were about the impact of car parking in the residential streets, he raised issues about landscaping, noise, impact of the southern boundary interface, overlooking, and general amenity.

Mr Grzankowski provided a PowerPoint presentation in support of his original written submission. He contended that the proposal would destroy Ainsdale Avenue as a garden court street and cause maximum annoyance to abutting and nearby proprieties. He likened the Hospital to a commercial building, and suggested that commercial buildings were not permitted in residential areas. Mr Grzankowski argued that there is sufficient land on the west side of Mountain Highway and elsewhere in the eastern suburbs for the Hospital to locate. He spoke of the cluster of uses as part of the Wantirna Medical Precinct and questioned why the Hospital needs to provide similar uses.

Mr Lui and Ms Ying raised issues relating to privacy and overlooking, as did Mr and Ms Ramsbottom who said that “the height of the building in Ainsdale Avenue will be too

Page 21 of 34


imposing on the surrounding houses, and privacy will be compromised”. Similar sentiments were expressed by Mr Ferraro and Ms Lettieri, Mr Yuan, and Ms Chow.

Ms Marshall highlighted the concerns raised by a number of the residents surrounding the subject land, and detailed additional provisions sought by Council in the Development Plan Overlay to address these. These include layout and elevation plans and a Landscape and Concept Plan. Ms Marshall argued that the interfaces with the southern boundary, Ainsdale Avenue and Putney Close warranted particular attention. She also argued for enhanced landscape outcomes, through the planting of more mature trees, canopy trees and additional planting in the raingarden.

At the Directions Hearing, Healthscope sought clarification about what Council had proposed as a ‘substantial setback’ in relation to the car park levels. This came about through Councils position post exhibition on the issues raised by submissions and its report of 22 April 2014. Council provided a notation on the indicative Master Plan in relation to the southern car park which said “… the upper levels of this car park are to be setback substantially further, or at least 12 metres, from the southern boundary”. The Panel commented in the previous chapter about the implications of this in terms of loss of car parking spaces, but it is raised here in the context of urban design.

Evidence about urban design and the public realm was provided and tested at the Hearing by Mr Craig Czarny of Hansen Partnership, and on landscape by Mr Evan Dimitropoulos of John Patrick on behalf of Healthscope. Additionally, the Panel was provided with some photo montages prepared by Mr Johnny Wilkinson of Sharp which reviewed how the interface on the southern boundary might be reconciled.

Through his evidence, Mr Czarny focussed on how the proposal might present from the public realm, which is from the street view. Mr Czarny assessed whether the proposed site plan and building envelope is responsive to site conditions, whether the Indicative Master Plan will realise appropriate design outcomes, and whether the Development Plan Overlay is the correct planning tool to realise such outcomes. He acknowledged there will be change in the area, and considered the correct response was to ensure the largest west facing building is located as far as is practically possible away from the sensitive residential areas.

Mr Czarny argued that the proposed Master Plan “provides clarity as to the largest possible envelope within which future architectural form can proceed, whilst allowing a degree of flexibility (within the confines of the envelope itself) in relation to specific architectural outcomes”. He considered that the built form envelope has been tailored to fit the site and to optimise its potential.

Mr Czarny advised that the presentation to the eastern area and the southern setbacks are critical public realm influences. He suggested that “the right urban design outcome can be realised for the site” with some further modifications to the Development Plan Overlay. He contended that a six story built form is not “uncommon for other institutional developments to present relatively abrupt interfaces”. He suggested that the projection of the eastern wing could be moved north to increase separation from the facing property at 3 Ainsdale Street to enhance the relationship with the main road frontage, a position with which the Council agreed. The Panel supports that revision.

Page 22 of 34


Mr Dimitropoulos gave evidence on the form of landscape that could be used to screen the southern boundary, and he gave some pictorial examples of similar landscaping used elsewhere.

4.2 Discussion The Panel consider that the key issues to be reconciled are the impact of the southern boundary interface with the adjacent residential areas, and the eastern interface to Ainsdale Avenue. It agrees with submitters that there will be an impact, and that if not addressed appropriately, could result in significant amenity impacts in terms of noise and visual intrusion.

With regard to the southern boundary, the Panel agrees that this needs a high level of planning control to ensure that it is well screened and landscaped. There is no doubt that the further the setback, the greater the potential for minimised amenity impacts. While Council sought up to 12 metres, this is simply not practicable.

The Panel considers that location of the building is appropriate to meet the needs of the Hospital. The Panel has previously commented that if it was set back further, it would lose a substantial number of car parks. However, modulation and articulation will be an essential design requirement to ensure that it does not present as a high bland wall that directly faces the rear of the houses in Kidderminster Drive. This must be complemented by well designed screening and landscaping. The Panel has amended the schedule to the Development Plan Overlay to include additional provisions about these treatments and it will ensure that Council has sufficient scope to robustly assess these parameters in dealing with future planning permit applications.

With regard to the eastern interface, the Panel accepts the opinion of Mr Czarny that a portion of the building proposed for the eastern interface can be moved north so that it will have less impact on opposite neighbours. Council supported this change to the indicative Master Plan.

With regard to matters put by Mr Grzankowski, the role of the Panel is to consider whether the Amendment as exhibited (or modified) should be adopted for this site. It is not the role of the Panel to consider other locations where the Hospital might be situated, nor that there should be smaller hospitals in more locations. The arguments put by Mr Grzankowski in this regard do not have merit. He suggested that Government policy changes, and if this Amendment was approved by Council, it locks into place what can be built on the site. Government policy may – or may not change – but the role of the Panel is to review current policy and to make its assessment on the policy of the day. In this regard, the relevant policy is strong and unwavering in its support of the Knox Private Hospital in this location.

There was discussion at the Hearing about the appropriate interfaces to Ainsdale Avenue and Kidderminster Drive and in summary, the Panel considers that based on the evidence and submissions, these can be managed through the exhibited and amended provisions of the overlay. The Panel has clarified what it considers to be the appropriate setbacks.

Page 23 of 34


4.3 Conclusions The Panel shares some of the concerns raised by residents about the impact of the proposal on residential amenity, particularly as it relates to the interface on the southern boundary. The Panel considers that the proponent has endeavoured to be cognisant of the residential neighbours in its forward planning, while at the same time, providing for a hospital that will meet the needs of a local community and a large region in years to come. The main access is from the two main roads (Boronia Road and Mountain Highway), with no access from the residential streets.

The setbacks as modified and recommended are appropriate for the site, and these take into account the key southern and eastern residential interfaces.

The reality of planning is that a range of non residential uses are legitimately permitted in residential areas. The Knox Private Hospital has been in this location for some 30 years. It is not a matter of shifting the Hospital, nor providing smaller hospitals elsewhere. While it has grown over that time, and will continue to grow, the Hospital provides an important medical and community service to local and regional communities, and this is now recognised through State planning policy as a health precinct of State significance in Plan Melbourne.

4.4 Recommendations The Panel recommends:

Amend the Indicative Master Plan to: a) Move the eastern wing building 8.4 metres (or 1 construction grid) to the

north. b) Provide the following setbacks to Ainsdale Avenue:

i. 9.5 metres along the northern frontage. ii. 4.8 metres along the southern frontage (south of Badminton Court).

c) Provide the following setbacks to Kidderminster Drive: i. 5.3 metres at the south and east corner axis.

ii. 7.5 metres along the length adjacent to the multi deck car park. iii. 3.0 metres along the length of the surface car park. iv. 6.0 metres in the corner area adjacent to 112 Kidderminster Drive.

Page 24 of 34


5 Other Matters 5.1 Acoustics Marshall Day Acoustics was retained on behalf of Healthscope “to provide an indication of any likely adverse noise impacts and general guidelines for noise control treatments”. The following noise sources associated with the operation of the hospital were identified by Marshall Day:

• mechanical services • delivery trucks and waste collection • late night activity in the car park • construction noise.

The first two noise sources must comply with noise limits set down by State Environment Protection Policy. Car park noise generally is related to sleep disturbance criteria. Marshall Day concluded the following in relation to car park noise: “With the incorporation of appropriate acoustic barriers, noise from vehicles and voices can comply with the recommended sleep disturbance criteria and restrictions on the operation of the car park would not be required during the night period”.

Construction noise is required to be managed in accordance with EPA Publication 1254 which refers to hours of operation and specifies maximum noise levels.

Nine of the 31 submissions received by Council in relation to Amendment C132 raised concerns in relation to noise emissions. Two of these submissions referred to the relocated gas facility.

Based upon research undertaken by Marshall Day, they came to the following conclusion:

With appropriate noise control measures and management controls to be addressed through subsequent permit applications and detailed design, noise emissions from the site can achieve the appropriate noise limits set down by Victorian Government policy, EPA guidelines and industry standards.

In his tabled evidence report, Mr Bavage of Marshall Day stated that:

A more detailed noise assessment will be required once the size and nature of the gas deliveries are established. However, I anticipate that the noise impact from these deliveries can be appropriately controlled by restricting deliveries to the day period. Opportunities may also exist to include acoustic screening and other treatments such as enclosure of pumps and valves to reduce noise levels where practicable.

The Panel notes that the Development Plan must include, to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority, “Any necessary acoustic protection measures, as recommended by a suitably qualified Acoustic Engineer”. The Panel further supports the Council recommended inclusion of an Acoustic Report as part of Clause 3.0 – conditions and requirements for permits.

Page 25 of 34


Council advised that it considered the report of Mr Bavage adequately addressed potential noise issues, and it suggested that further conditions be included in any planning permit issued under the Development Plan Overlay. The Panel agrees that these matters can be addressed at the planning permit stage.

The Panel is satisfied that appropriate controls are able to be applied to each stage of the expansion to avoid unreasonable detriment to the adjoining residential properties. However, as discussed in Chapter 3.5, the Panel has suggested that in order to avoid noise generated by staff departing during the early morning period, night staff parking should be allocated to the car parking areas most remote from the residential interface.

5.2 Infrastructure A submission was received from the Department of State Development, Business and Innovation (DSDBI) in relation to the location of a high pressure gas pipeline. In its submission, the Department advised that:

The Amendment site is located adjacent to high pressure gas pipeline – PL40 (owner …). The pipeline has been designed as suitable for location class T1. A hospital is considered to be a sensitive use and any development would be positioned within the bounds of the pipelines 4.7kW/m2 radiation zone (blue line) and also within the 12.6kW/m2 radiation zone (red line).

A plan was attached to the submission, but the colours as designated were indecipherable. The Department advised that given the sensitive nature of the proposed development of the Hospital, the pipeline owners would require early participation and engagement in any development proposals.

DSDBI did not make any further submission to the Panel.

The submission from Ms Yu questioned the location of on-site of gas infrastructure.

The Panel notes that the schedule to the Development Plan Overlay requires the Development Plan to provide layout and elevation plans showing, inter alia, the location of gas storage services and other large plant and services. It further requires:

A Safety Management Study to determine whether planning permit conditions may be required with regards to the adjacent high pressure gas pipeline. This Study must include a requirement for early consultation with the Pipeline owner as part of any future planning permit.

Neither the Council nor the proponent provided any further commentary on this issue.

The Panel considers that this Study should highlight any planning issues to be resolved at the planning permit stage and that it provides the appropriate safeguard with respect to the pipeline infrastructure.

The Panel has already recommended that the location of on site infrastructure be reviewed as part of the Development Plan process.

Page 26 of 34


Appendix A: List of Submitters No. Submitter

1 Public Transport Victoria

2 Melbourne Water

3 South East Water

4 Ray and Fay Ward

5 Anna Ward

6 Alison Fitch

7 Department of State Development, Business and Innovation

8 Peter Taylor

9 Evan and Karen Moore

10 Peter Couper

11 VicRoads

12 William Lui and Pam Ying

13 Gilda Mihran

14 Sui Ping Lau and Chin Ho Lau

15 Sue and David Ramsbottom

16 Margaret Johnstone

17 Mi Yusuf

18 Anne Ewart

19 Ray and Gloria Burns

20 Caterina Lettieri

21 Edmond Chan

22 Theo and Mina Hoffs

23 Holly Yu and Dong Sheng Yu

24 Charles Yuan

25 Susan Broome

26 Kia Chow

27 Peter Broome

28 Joanne Buchanan

29 Kazimierz (Kaz) Grzankowski

30 William (Bill) Lewis

31 Caroline Murphy

32 Judy Wilding

33 Healthscope

Page 27 of 34


Appendix B: Document List from Hearing No. Date Description Presented by

1 12/08/14 Letter from E and K Moore to PPV K Mitchell (chair)

2 “ A3 Book of plans, Knox Private Hospital P Connor for Healthscope

3 “ Knox Planning Scheme C132 Folder M Marshall for Knox City Council

4 “ Knox City Council submission M Marshall

5 “ VicRoads amended submission K Mitchell

6 “ Peter Taylor submission M Marshall

7 “ Updated list of submittors M Marshall

8 “ VCAT Determination, MCC v T Bursztn M Marshall

9 “ VCAT Determination City of Port Phillip v JMC Academy

M Marshall

10 13/08/14 Woods Bagot Presentation P Connor

11 “ Healthscope Ltd submission P Connor

12 “ Folder of attachments to Healthscope submission P Connor

13 “ C Czarny PowerPoint presentation C Czarny

14 14/08/14 J Kiriakidis PowerPoint presentation J Kiriakidis

15 “ Zoning maps for five hospital sites M Marshall

16 “ Table derived from J Kiriakidis evidence re parking demand at Knox hospital

M Marshall

17 “ Examples of green wall and planter box E Dimitropoulos

18 15/08/14 W Lewis submission W Lewis

19 “ D S and H Yu submission H Yu

20 “ K Grzankowski PowerPoint submission K Grzankowski

21 “ Panel extract re Latrobe Amendment C48 P Connor

22 “ Indicative Master Plan October 2013 with modified setbacks

P Connor

23 “ List of Amendments – C132 Setbacks P Connor

23a “ Plan showing location of setbacks referred to in Document 23

P Connor

24 “ Adjusted cross section south boundary M Marshall

25 “ Revised Knox Council preferred version of DPO 11 M Marshall

26 “ Revised R Kelderman preferred version of DPO 11 P Connor

27 “ VCAT Determination Cameron Manor v Mornington Peninsula Shire

M Marshall

Page 28 of 34


No. Date Description Presented by

28 “ Knox Private Hospital patient activity levels, May 2013 and 2014

P Connor

30 18/08/14 Planning permit conditions for 94 Kidderminster Drive: P/2007/7051, 3 August 2009

M Marshall

31 “ Amended planning permit conditions for 98 Kidderminster Drive: P/2008/7017, 10 October 2012

M Marshall

Page 29 of 34


Appendix C: Revised Schedule 11 to Development Plan Overlay

Page 30 of 34

KNOX PLANNING SCHEME

SCHEDULE 11 TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY

Shown on the planning scheme map as DPO11

KNOX PRIVATE HOSPITAL EXPANSION

The objectives of this schedule are to: Provide for the orderly expansion of the Knox Private Hospital, in a manner which is

responsive to its residential context with no unreasonable detriment to residential amenity. Provide for safe and orderly car parking and traffic movement within the surrounding

residential street network.

Provide for the continued use and development of land for hospital and related facilities. Protect the amenity of existing residential development in the area. Provide for the orderly expansion of the Knox Private Hospital. Provide a suitable landscaping response to the use and development. Ensure adequate car parking and bicycle provision is provided for the use and development.

1.0 Requirement before a permit is granted

The responsible authority can consider an application to construct a building or construct or carry out works, prior to the approval of a Development Plan, provided it is limited to the following:

No permits may be granted prior to the approval of a development plan, unless limited to the following: Minor alterations to the facade of buildings, including canopies and entry and exit points. Minor building and works such as Signage installation. Use and development of the land for temporary uses, to the satisfaction of the Responsible

Authority. Upgrading of services, including roof plant and waste management facilities. and other

ongoing maintenance works. Or otherwise to the satisfaction of Council.

3.0 2.0 Requirements for development plan

A The Development Plan must be informed by a detailed analysis of the features of the site and surrounding context. The Development Plan must be in accordance with Figure 1 to this Schedule and must include the following to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority: A site analysis and context plan. Layout and elevation plans showing the following:

o Buildings setbacks in accordance with Figure 1. o Elevations including the colours and details of materials used for external walls. o The provision of vertical and horizontal fenestration to alleviate bulk to the north and

east elevations. o The use modulation and articulation for buildings and carparks to ensure an

appropriate built form outcome, as well as landscape screening. o Details of the protection proposed for to avoid unreasonable detriment to the privacy

and amenity of residential areas, adjoining residential interface, including appropriate locations of carparks, plant and loading areas away from residential interfaces and

--/--/20-- C132

--/--/20-- C132

DEVELOPMENT PLAN OVERLAY - SCHEDULE 11 (PANEL CHANGES TO EXHIBITED VERSION) PAGE 1 OF 4


setbacks, materials, noise attenuation, landscape buffers and visual screening where appropriate.

o In the south precinct, definition of a building articulation zone to the southern façade, allowing for façade effects, rebates or structured landscape effects to the southern elevation, in order to ameliorate visual bulk, to address light spill and noise impacts and address the length of the carpark on the southern elevation.

o Overshadowing and overlooking plans to demonstrate that no unreasonable detriment will be caused to the privacy and amenity of residential areas, particularly adjoining residential dwellings, in accordance with the relevant standards.

o The provision of communal open spaces with pedestrian links. o Overshadowing to adjoining residential areas to comply with standard B21 in Clause

55.04-5. o Overlooking to adjoining residential areas to comply with standard B22 in Clause

55.04-6. o The location of gas storage services and other large plant and services. o Any necessary acoustic protection measures, as recommended by a suitably qualified

Acoustic Engineer. A Waste Management Plan. Traffic and Car Parking Management Plan showing the following:

o An assessment of the impact of traffic and car parking generated by the use and development upon the surrounding arterial and local road network.

o A Travel Plan for Hospital staff, contractors and visitors. o Local area traffic management initiatives and/or changes to existing on-street parking

restrictions for the street network surrounding the Knox Private Hospital, or other measures, developed to minimise on-street parking by Hospital staff, contractors and visitors.

o Traffic management and traffic control works on the land and affected roads as required by VicRoads and/or Knox City Council to mitigate traffic impacts of the proposed development.

o The layout of accessways, car parking and loading areas. o Separated areas for pedestrian movement throughout the site, and linkages to the

external pedestrian network. o The provision of convenient bicycle storage facilities. o The inclusion of parking guidance technology. o A requirement that this traffic plan be reviewed 3 months after occupation of

preceding stages. o Drop off and pick up areas that do not conflict with vehicle movement, with signs

advising motorists to be aware of pedestrians. A traffic report to the satisfaction of the responsible authority and the roads authority that

includes (but is not limited to) the following: o An assessment of the impact of traffic and car parking generated by the use and

development upon the surrounding arterial and local road network. o Any traffic improvement measures required to address identified issues. o An assessment of car parking and bicycle parking to be provided on site and a review

of the access and car parking layout. o Provision of adequate car parking to the satisfaction of the Responsible Authority.

A Landscapeing Concept and Maintenance Plan detailing showing the following: o Areas set aside for landscaping within the site, including the provision of extensive

native planting along Mountain Highway and Boronia Road to complement the municipal wide Bush Boulevard theme.



o Landscape buffers along the eastern and southern boundaries to provide appropriate screening for adjoining residential properties, with planting at a mature height commensurate with the height of the proposed development.

o The provision and management of communal open spaces with pedestrian links. o Tree protection zones for trees to be retained. Tree protection zones must be

determined by a suitably qualified Arborist. o An ongoing Landscape Maintenance Plan.

A Safety Management Study to determine whether planning permit conditions may be required with regards to the adjacent high pressure gas pipeline. This Study must include a requirement for early consultation with the Pipeline owner as part of any future planning permit.

2.0 3.0 Conditions and requirements for permits

An application for a permit must be accompanied by the following, as appropriate: An architectural design response for all buildings. A detailed Landscaping Plan. A Planning Report outlining how the development is generally in accordance with the

approved Development Plan. An Acoustic Report, which must demonstrate that the facility, including hours of operation

and deliveries, will meet the guidelines of the Environment Protection Authority or other relevant bodies.

A Parking Management Plan. A Sustainable Design Assessment detailing proposed environmentally sustainable

initiatives, including Water Sensitive Urban Design. A Construction Management Plan to ensure that the amenity of the neighbouring residential

area is protected throughout the construction period. A Waste Management Plan. A written response stating how the development responds to Safety by Design principles to

prevent hazards and unsafe spaces for the community. A Disability Access Audit Report, prepared by a suitably qualified and registered disability

auditor, assessing the access requirements for disabled persons.

Before deciding on an application to use or develop the land, the Responsible Authority must consider: Whether the design and location of buildings, including carparks, plant and loading areas,

will avoid unreasonable detriment to the privacy and amenity of the adjoining residential interface.

Whether external lighting effects have been designed and treated to avoid unreasonable detriment to the amenity of neighbouring residential areas.

Whether noise containment measures for all new buildings are adequate to avoid unreasonable detriment to the amenity of nearby residential properties.

Overshadowing to adjoining residential areas to comply with standard B21 in Clause 55.04-5, or other relevant standard.

Overlooking to adjoining residentil areas to comply with standard B22 in Clause 55.04-6, or other relevant standard.

Whether the objectives of this Schedule have been met. A permit must include the following conditions, or otherwise approved by the Responsible Authority:

--/--/20-- C132



A Management Plan, which must outline hours of operation, hours of deliveries, noise control.

A Traffic and Parking Management Plan, which must be in accordance with the approved Development Plan.

A Construction Management Plan to ensure that the amenity of the neighbouring residential area is protected throughout the construction period, including the influence staging of the development may have on access to on-site carparking.

4.0 Decision Guidelines

Before approving the Development Plan, or amendments to the Development Plan prepared in accordance with the requirements of Clause 2.0 of this schedule, the Responsible Authority must consider: The provisions and requirements of Figure 1 to this schedule. Whether the Development Plan achieves the objectives of this schedule. Whether the development sufficiently avoids unreasonable detriment to the privacy and

amenity of existing residential development particularly that of the adjacent residential dwellings. in the area is sufficiently protected.

NOTE: The Indicative Master Plan is to be amended to show the revised setbacks as per Panel

recommendations (not drawn).

--/--/20-- C132


Documents

Planning and Environment Act 1987 Panel Report€¦ · 1.4 Issues Dealt with in this Report ... In 2013, Healthscope lodged a planning permit application to further extend the hospital